Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Original: English
Seventieth session
Item 130 of the preliminary list*
Investigation into the conditions and circumstances resulting
in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjld and of the members
of the party accompanying him
* A/70/50.
I am grateful to the Head and the members of the Panel for their travel to
Lusaka and Ndola in Zambia. I also wish to thank the 12 surviving eyewitnesses
whom they interviewed and who generously shared their time and recollections of
the final stages of flight SE-BDY. The work of the Panel was facilitated by the
information conveyed by the Hammarskjld Commission in its report as set out in
the annex to my note of 21 March 2014 (A/68/800). It is a testament to its due
diligence and best efforts that the Panel sought and successfully obtained additional
new information from the relevant national and private archives and from other
prominent sources, including the former Hammarskjld Commissioners as well as
various researchers and technical experts. I also welcome the proactive approach of
the Panel in reaching out to all Member States and in following up with requests for
specific information to certain Member States that may have relevant records or
other relevant information in their possession. This not only served to focus the
efforts of the Panel on materials whose existence appears to be substantiated by the
new information made available to it, but also helped to narrow the scope of the
possible causes to those the plausibility of which the Panel deemed to have
sufficient probative value.
I appreciate the efforts of Member States to cooperate with the Panel and wish
to convey my gratitude to the Member States concerned for their willingness to
provide or make available new information to the Head and/or members of the
Panel. I note, however, that in some cases, Member States have not provided a
substantive response, have not responded at all or have maintained the classified
status of the documents in question despite the passage of time. I intend to follow
up with the Member States concerned. In its report, the Panel also stated that
despite the submission of other specific information requests by the Panel to
certain Member States, those States that have responded have advised that they were
unable to locate any documents responsive to the requests. The Panel is explicit in
its conclusion that this is a line of inquiry that the Panel considers has not yet been
exhausted. I understand this to mean that there is a possibility that unreleased
classified material relating to the crash of SE-BDY may still be available. In this
regard, I urge the Member States concerned to continue their search for relevant
documents and information and to respond as soon as possible to the pending
requests for specific information.
With regard to the examination and assessment by the Panel of the probative
value of the new information made available to it, I note that new information
relating to the cause or causes of death appears to uphold the propriety, findings and
conclusions of the original 1961 post-mortem examination of the passengers of
SE-BDY. This would appear to confirm that 15 passengers on board SE-BDY died
of multiple injuries or presumed multiple injuries sustained in the crash and that the
sixteenth passenger died of similar causes, albeit five days later. The lack of
probative value of the other new information relating to the cause or causes of death
effectively puts to rest the claims that Dag Hammarskjld was assassinated after
surviving the crash.
Similarly, the Panels assessment of the new information relating to sabotage
or hijacking as possible causes of the crash also appears to put these two hypotheses
to rest, absent any additional new information that may emerge. The Panel also
found that claims made by mercenaries, or their interlocutors, and other agents that
they shot or otherwise forced down SE-BDY in an aerial attack lacked credibility.
Finally, while the Panel did not receive any new information that was specifically
2/99 15-09722
A/70/132
related to pilot error, I note the statement by the Panel that this does not prejudice
the probative value of the existing information concerning that hypothesis of the
cause of the crash.
The Panel assigned moderate probative value to the following new information
relevant to the hypothesis of an aerial attack or other interference as a possible
cause or causes of the crash:
(a) Nine new eyewitness accounts that they observed more than one aircraft
in the air at the same time as SE-BDY made its approach to Ndola, and that any
additional aircraft were jets, or that SE-BDY was on fire before it impacted the
ground or that it was fired upon or otherwise actively engaged by other aircraft
present;
(b) The claims by two persons regarding hearing alleged intercepts or
reading transcripts of intercepts of radio transmissions relating to a possible aerial
or ground attack on SE-BDY;
(c) Additional information that has emerged on the air capability of the
provincial government of Katanga in 1961 and its use of foreign military and
paramilitary personnel;
(d) The possibility that communications sent from the CX-52 cryptographic
machine used by Mr. Hammarskjld were intercepted;
(e) The possible role of crew fatigue as a contributing factor to the crash of
SE-BDY under one or more of the hypotheses of the possible causes of the crash;
and
(f) Additional information that calls into question the official account of the
time of discovery of the crash site and the behaviour of various officials and local
authorities.
As such, the Panel ultimately found significant new information that it
assessed as having sufficient probative value to further pursue aerial attack or other
interference as a hypothesis of the possible cause of the crash. In particular, the
Panel specifically concluded that the new eyewitness testimony, the claims of
alleged intercepts and the new information concerning the air capability of the
Katangan forces, as mentioned in (a) to (c) above, may also provide an appreciable
lead in pursuing the truth of the probable cause or causes of the air crash and tragic
deaths.
It is my view that a further inquiry or investigation would be necessary to
finally establish the facts. Such an inquiry or investigation would, however, be in a
better position to reach a conclusive finding regarding the tragic events of 17 and
18 September 1961 with the benefit of the specific information requested by the
Panel from the Member States concerned. I therefore urge Member States, once
again, to disclose, declassify or otherwise allow privileged access to information
that they may have in their possession related to the circumstances and conditions
resulting in the deaths of the passengers of SE-BDY. This would be of particular
relevance in regard to new information that the Panel has assessed as having
moderate probative value.
To this end, I have requested my Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs,
the United Nations Legal Counsel, to engage with the Member States concerned to
15-09722 3/99
A/70/132
follow up on the unfulfilled aspects of the Panels requests for specific information
and to receive and review any additional new information provided by Member
States or by other sources in a focused and concerted examination of whether it
alters the probative value of the information currently in our possession. The Legal
Counsel would also advise me on developments that require the attention or action
of the General Assembly. I will report to the Assembly on any further progress made
before the end of its seventieth session.
In this connection, and in line with the recommendation of the Panel to
maintain contact with the various national and privately held archives, I have also
asked the Legal Counsel to explore the feasibility of the establishment of a central
archival holding or other holistic arrangement that would enable access by
electronic or other appropriate means to those records and archives by the United
Nations and any other authorized parties with a view to ensuring their continued and
enhanced preservation and access.
In conclusion, it is imperative that we heed the words of the Head of the Panel
in his transmittal letter of 11 June 2015, wherein he states that the final revelation
of the whole truth about the conditions and circumstances resulting in the tragic
death of Dag Hammarskjld and of members of the party accompanying him would
still require the United Nations, as a matter of continuity and priority, to further
critically address remaining information gaps, including in the existence of
classified material and information held by Member States and their agencies that
may shed further light on this fatal event and its probable cause or causes.
It is therefore our shared responsibility to pursue the full truth concerning the
conditions and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjld and
the others accompanying him. To that end, I recommend that the General Assembly
remain seized of this matter. This may be our last chance to find the truth. In our
renewed commitment in this regard, I call on the Assembly to reiterate its message
to Member States, further to paragraph 2 of its resolution 69/246, to ensure that any
relevant records that remain classified, more than 50 years after the fact, are
declassified or otherwise made available for review either by the Secretariat of the
United Nations or by any eminent person or persons whom the Assembly may wish
to entrust with this mandate.
I consider this our solemn duty to my illustrious and distinguished
predecessor, Dag Hammarskjld, to the other members of the party accompanying
him and to their families.
4/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Letter of transmittal
Letter dated 11 June 2015 from the Head of the Independent Panel of Experts
established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 69/246 addressed to the
Secretary-General
15-09722 5/99
A/70/132
6/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Contents
Page
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
II. New information about the causes of death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
III. New information from eyewitnesses to the final stages of flight SE-BDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
IV. New information about an aerial or ground attack or other external threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
V. New information about sabotage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
VI. New information about hijacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
VII. New information about human factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
VIII. New information about the activities of officials and local authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
IX. Summary of key findings and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
X. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Appendices
1. General information request from the Panel to all Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2. Specific information request from the Panel to the Government of Belgium and the response
thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3. Specific information request from the Panel to the Government of France and the response
thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4. Specific information request from the Panel to the Government of Germany and the response
thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5. Specific information request from the Panel to the Government of the Republic of South
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6. Specific information requests from the Panel to the Government of the United States and the
response thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7. Specific information request from the Panel to the Government of the United Kingdom and
the response thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
__________________
* The present report is being issued without formal editing.
15-09722 7/99
A/70/132
I. Introduction
Background
1. Having received the report of the Commission of Jurists on the Inquiry into the
Death of Dag Hammarskjld (Hammarskjld Commission), the Secretary-General
submitted to the General Assembly, on 21 March 2014, that report along with a note
providing his assessment that it includes new evidence related to the tragic death of
former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjld and of the members of the party
accompanying him (see A/68/800 and A/68/800/Add.1). The Hammarskjld
Commission was a private and voluntary body of four renowned international jurists
invited by an enabling committee to principally examine and report whether, in their
view, evidence now available would justify the United Nations in reopening its
inquiry.
2. Having acknowledged the report and considered the assessment of the
Secretary-General, the General Assembly requested in its resolution 69/246 of
29 December 2014 the Secretary-General to appoint an independent panel of experts
to examine new information and assess its probative value. In that resolution, the
General Assembly encouraged Member States to release any relevant records in
their possession and to provide to the Secretary-General relevant information related
to the tragic deaths. Pursuant to the resolution, the Secretary-General announced the
appointment, on 16 March 2015, of the Independent Panel of Experts (the Panel) to
examine and assess the probative value of new information related to the conditions
and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of former Secretary-General Dag
Hammarskjld and of the members of the party accompanying him. He appointed as
the Head of the Panel, Mohamed Chande Othman, the Chief Justice of the United
Republic of Tanzania, as well as Kerryn Macaulay (Australia), an aviation safety
expert, and Henrik Larsen (Denmark), a ballistics expert. The Panel carried out its
work from 30 March to 12 June 2015. This report presents the Panels summary, and
assessment of the probative value, of the new information made available to it, as
well as its findings, conclusions and recommendations.
8/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 9/99
A/70/132
10/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Denmark, Professor Peter Juel Thiis Knudsen; the Chief Forensic Pathologist of
Ontario and Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at the University of
Toronto, Professor Michael S. Pollanen; and the Director of the Centre for Forensic
and Legal Medicine at the University of Dundee, Professor Stewart Fleming. In
regard to ballistics information, the Panel obtained assessments from Detective
Inspector and Firearms Examiner at the National Centre of Forensic Services in
Denmark, Egon Poulsen, and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), who in turn consulted with the United States National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB).
15-09722 11/99
A/70/132
12/99 15-09722
A/70/132
of the photos taken of the body, this hole had been heavily retouched such that it is
not discernible.
21. Neither the reports of the Rhodesian Commission of Inquiry or the
UN Commission indicate whether or not these inquiries were aware of or had
considered Egges claim. Similarly, there is no indication that Egge shared, with any
United Nations official, his alleged observations about Hammarskjlds forehead at
Ndola Hospital at that time or immediately thereafter.
15-09722 13/99
A/70/132
25. In connection with its assessment of the probative value of the new
information, the Panel sought the assistance of the Government of the Republic of
South Africa with identifying and assessing the authenticity of the information
implicating Swanepoel. More specifically, the Panel requested, on 23 April 2015,
that the competent South African authorities search for and share with it any
information they may have in their possession relating to the claim, as well as any
other relevant information they may have about the existence and activities of one
or more South Africans working as mercenaries in Katanga in 1961 with the name
Swanepoel (see appendix 5). At the time of writing, the Panel was yet to receive a
response.
26. That said, considering the contradictory and highly divergent accounts given
by Osmond and Cooper, which goes to the root of the issue; their imprecise and
vague identification of a mercenary by the name of Swanepoel, a common name in
South Africa; and as we shall soon highlight, the findings and conclusions of the
post-mortem medical examinations, including the expert forensic opinion, the Panel
found that the probative value of the new information alleging that mercenaries
named Swanepoel or Cooper shot dead Hammarskjld at the crash site is of nil
probative value.
14/99 15-09722
A/70/132
25 January 2013, that when he visited the crash site to assist in the search of the
wreckage, on 19 September 1961, he discovered the body of a Swedish soldier
concealed beneath the debris, whom he thought was a soldier (BBB) and whom he
photographed. The body was extensively burnt and appeared to have a bullet wound
in the left thigh. The remains of a 9-mm sub-machine gun were in the wreckage
nearby. He believed that the leg injury might have been caused either by the
explosion or discharge of ammunition carried by the soldier.
31. Begg also claimed that while he was at the crash site he photographed the
soldiers body. In fact, the photograph he had taken was the body of another victim
of the crash (CCC), who wore a blue and white United Nations arm band on his left
arm, and not that of the Swedish soldier (BBB).
32. The post-mortem examination of the person that Begg actually saw and
photographed (CCC) noted his cause of death as due to multiple injuries due to the
crash. He had a fracture of the right femur, and the right lower leg had very great
loss of tissue on the lower half, posterially, medially and laterally and his ankle
joint had a fracture dislocation. On the left leg, there was a gaping wound of the
lateral aspect of the mid-thigh, but the femur was intact.
15-09722 15/99
A/70/132
medical and other relevant information but without having the benefit of the autopsy
X-rays) that there was no evidence from the autopsy reports that Hammarskjld had
been shot, subjected to explosion or exposed to smoke. In their opinion, the
post-mortem examinations strongly indicated that the most important cause of death
was the crush injury to the chest with multiple fractures of the ribs, sternum and
thoracic spine, with bleeding into the pleural cavities; all of which would have led
to respiratory failure due to unstable chest wall (flail chest). It was their opinion
that the appearance of the injuries strongly suggested they were caused by
decelerating force during ejection from the aircraft and the subsequent impact of the
body against the ground. The presence of injuries also suggested that Hammarskjld
was alive when the injuries were sustained. In their view, survival would have been
expected to be only brief, though it was not possible to give a definite estimate, and
that Hammarskjld was probably unconscious from his head injury after the impact.
36. Given the claims arising out of the new information on the cause of death; the
nexus of that issue with the air-crash, and the questions raised on the propriety of
the original post-mortem medical examinations by Drs. Ross, Stevens and Smith,
the Panel found it appropriate to seek the opinion of three independent and
renowned forensic experts.
37. The Deputy Chief Forensic Pathologist of the Institute of Forensic Pathology
at the University of Southern Denmark, Professor Peter Juel Thiis Knudsen, came to
the conclusion that there were compelling indications, if not evidence, that
Hammarskjld was alive when he suffered the fractures; and that a gunshot wound
to the head, particularly one that was inflicted before the aircraft crashed, is very
unlikely. He was of the view that, judging from his injuries, it is unlikely
Hammarskjld should have survived the crash for more than a few seconds at most,
and a gunshot wound to the head after he died is also very unlikely and contradicted
by the autopsy findings. He opined that the suspicion of a gunshot wound to the
head is purely speculative and supported in no way by the autopsy. He concluded
his opinion with a caveat that the lack of gunshot wounds to Hammarskjlds body
or the other deceased persons, with the exception of the wounds from exploded
cartridges, does not exclude the possibility that the aircraft was shot down.
38. Chief Forensic Pathologist of Ontario and Professor of Laboratory Medicine
and Pathobiology at the University of Toronto, Professor Michael S. Pollanen, was
also of the opinion that the deaths of all of the occupants in the aircraft can be
explained by injuries sustained in the crash or post-crash fire; that there is no
medical evidence Hammarskjld sustained one or more gunshot wounds to the head
and that the metallic debris embedded in the two soldiers aboard the aircraft,
including bullets and fragments of cartridge cases, are explained by post-crash
thermal ignition of live ammunition contained in the aircraft, ignited by the
post-crash fire, rather than from gunshot wounds. Further, he assessed that the
deaths did not occur prior to the aircraft crash, in that the injuries of the aircrafts
occupants were sustained in the air crash and occurred while they were alive and
explained the deaths. He was of the further opinion that the autopsy reports do not
provide any evidence to determine what caused the aircraft to crash. He opined that
there are no medical or scientific grounds for exhuming Hammarskjlds body or that
of any of the deceased. Pollanen agreed with the findings and conclusions reached
by Drs. Ross, Stevens and Smith, which were arrived at after a pathological
examination of the bodies at the crash site, radiological examinations, external and
internal examinations, and laboratory examinations (histology and toxicology).
16/99 15-09722
A/70/132
39. The new information, including that by Egge, also endeavours to cast doubt on
the propriety of the autopsy reports, which Egge claimed had been removed from
the case documents when he visited Ndola Hospital immediately after the crash. In
the Panels view, the verified existence of the autopsy records among the Roy
Welensky papers in the archives of the Bodleian Library; of the autopsy records in
the archives of Dr. J. Hillsdon Smith at the Ontario Chief Pathologists Office in
Toronto; and those of Dr. Hugh Douglass Ross at the University of Dundee fatally
undermine any probative value that that claim may have had. With regard to the
availability and accessibility of medical archives, the Panel wishes to commend the
decision of the Government of Sweden to declassify the Medical Information Report
held at the National Archives of Sweden. Similarly, the Panel appreciated the
decision of the University of Dundee to authorise the release and make available to
the Panel for its review the relevant medical records held in its archives.
40. Commissioned by the Panel to examine the archives of Dr. Ross, held at the
University of Dundee Archive Services, the Director of the Centre for Forensic and
Legal Medicine at the University of Dundee, Professor Stewart Fleming, identified
two pieces of primary medico-legal evidence, namely, a complete set of original
X-ray, consisting of 200 X-ray films of all 15 victims of the air-crash and X-rays of
the ankle fracture of Sergeant Julien; and a large chart entitled Analysis of
Pathological Findings on Victims of Accident of UN Aircraft at Ndola on 17/18
September 1961 (the Chart), which consists of a record of the pathologists notes
from the autopsy examinations of all 16 victims that are believed to have been
written contemporaneous to the post-mortem examinations.
41. Having examined the primary evidence, in particular all of the 200 X-rays, and
checked the traumatic injuries against those recorded in the Chart and in the
Medical Investigation Report, Professor Fleming opined that all injuries were
correctly recorded by the pathologists at the time of the post-mortem examinations.
Furthermore, in regard to Hammarskjld, he was of the view that the severity of the
chest trauma was evident in his X-rays and was due to crash injury to the chest.
Based on these findings and Dr. Rosss post-mortem description of the thorax,
vertebrae, neck and head of the victim, he was led to the conclusion that death was
due to ventilatory failure brought about by a crush injury to the chest. He considered
that survival following the accident would have been brief and that the victim would
almost certainly have been unconscious as a consequence of the head injury
described in the Medical Investigation Report. After studying Hammarskjlds skull
X-rays, he concluded with certainty that there was no bullet wound to
Hammarskjlds forehead, as had been claimed by Egge.
42. The Medical Investigation Report acknowledges that Egge officially identified
Hammarskjlds body at Ndola Hospital. His corpse was also viewed by Knutt
Hammarskjld, his nephew. Considering the relevant information; the non-immediate
reporting by Egge to United Nations authorities who had purposely sent him to
Ndola, or to his Norwegian military supervisors, about what he alleged to have seen
on Hammarskjlds forehead at Ndola Hospital; the unexplained delay in disclosing
the alleged new information; the concurrence of the opinion of forensic experts
consulted by the Swedish Royal Medical Board (Dr A. Frykholm and Dr N. Ringertz)
as part of the UN Commissions investigation; and the respective experts consulted
by Dr. Susan Williams, the Hammarskjld Commission and this Panel, who
essentially agree on the correctness, propriety and conclusions of the original
autopsy reports prepared by Drs. Ross, Stevens and Smith, the Panel is of the view
15-09722 17/99
A/70/132
that Egges claim that Hammarskjld had a bullet hole in his forehead has nil
probative value.
43. Further, considering the mistake by Begg in the identification of the victim,
and the belief that the person he saw had bullet wounds, which is in variance with
the autopsy report, the Panel found the new information provided by him as having
nil probative value.
44. For completeness, it may be added that while the respective forensic experts
consulted by the Hammarskjld Commission and by the Panel generally also agree
that the post-mortem examinations conducted by Drs. Ross, Stevens and Smith were
rather brief and the details of the appearance, size and position of some of the
injuries were described more in summary than they would have been if conducted
according to current forensic standards, they also underscored the point that they
were of good quality, professional, and that they accurately and completely
documented all of the injuries that can also be seen in their respective X-rays, and
were probably in line with what were then the prevailing standard.
45. With regard to the additional claim supported by Egge that one of
Hammarskjlds photographs was heavily retouched to cover up a bullet wound to
his forehead, the Panel was unable to locate the original photographs or the
negatives of Hammarskjld forehead or body taken either at the crash site or at the
Ndola Hospital Mortuary to enable a technical assessment of such a claim.
Moreover, the Panel was unable, due to a lack of complete identifying information,
to ascertain the authority and expertise of the scholar referred to in the Aftenposten
newspaper article and on whom Egge based his assertion. Dr. Vanhegan, who had
viewed three of Hammarskjlds photographs, expressed the view that it is not
possible to determine how the body lay at the time it was found, nor how near it was
to the point of impact of the aircraft when it crashed. Considering all of the above,
and the nature of the unsubstantiated allegation, the Panel found that the probative
value of the new information claiming that one of the photographs of Hammarskjld
was heavily doctored to be weak.
18/99 15-09722
A/70/132
47. Of the 12 new witnesses, five (Custon Chipoya, Kankasa, Mwebe, Ngongo and
Ngulube) referred in their statements to having observed more than one aircraft in
the air at the time they believe they saw a large aircraft, assumed to be SE-BDY,
making an approach to land at Ndola on the night of 17-18 September 1961. Seven
of the witnesses (Custon Chipoya, Kankasa, E. Mulenga, S. Mulenga, Mwebe,
Ngongo and Ngulube) claimed that the large aircraft was on fire prior to crashing to
the ground. Despite being just two to three kilometres from the crash site, two
witnesses (Mwansa and Chimema) stated that they did not observe a second aircraft
(or third, for that matter) or signs of a fire on the one aircraft they did see in the air.
48. The Panel noted from its review of all of the witness statements, including
those provided by witnesses who testified at the official inquiries, in 1961 and 1962,
that much of the content of the new witness statements is not entirely new in that
several of the witnesses who testified at the official inquiries also reported
observing one or more aircraft in the air in addition to SE-BDY as the DC6 was
manoeuvring to land at Ndola. Some of these witnesses also reported observing
what they believed was SE-BDY on fire while still airborne. The Panel nevertheless
considered the contents of the statements made by the new witnesses as new
information on the basis that it is from sources not heard by the UN Commission or
the official inquiries that preceded it.
49. In addition, the Panel revisited the statements of what the Rhodesian
Commission described as the African witnesses, assessing that the testimony they
provided was either treated unfairly or inconsistently, was at times held as
unreliable without sufficient reasons, was regarded with extreme suspicion because
of the holding by the witnesses of nationalistic or political feelings or because the
witnesses were disregarded merely for not reporting immediately to the authorities
what they saw even though they satisfactorily explained their reasons for not doing
so. In that connection, the Panel agreed with the Hammarskjld Commission that,
with respect, the UN Commission appears to have been conservative in the selection
of witnesses it heard and that it relied too heavily on the Rhodesian Commission of
Inquiry in this regard, which the Hammarskjld Commission described as a less
reliable predecessor. For these reasons, the Panel considered that the information
provided by such witnesses was old information that could now be seen in a new
light for the purposes of the Panels assessment.
15-09722 19/99
A/70/132
the area after the large aircraft had impacted the ground. The witness claims to have
gone to the crash site at dawn. Upon arrival, he observed that there was nobody
around and that the aircraft wreckage was smouldering. He claims to have seen the
body of Hammarskjld set against an anthill.
52. The second new eyewitness (Custon Chipoya) recalled that around midnight
he witnessed a large aircraft circling in the air. As it circled for the third time, he
saw a small aircraft he described, because of its speed and sound, as a jet. The
witness then described seeing fire going from the small aircraft toward the large
aircraft. He heard a big bang, following which the large aircraft caught fire and then
crashed. The witness claims to have gone to the crash site at dawn, where he
observed police and soldiers present. He reported that many of the bodies of the
victims had already been removed, including that of Hammarskjld, as had parts of
the aircraft wreckage.
53. The third of the new eyewitness in the forest on the night in question (Moses
Chimema) recalled observing a large aircraft in the sky, sometime between 1900 and
2200 hours. He went on to recount that the aircrafts wing bashed into trees as it
turned and then crashed. The witness made no comment in his statements about
having seen the aircraft on fire while it was airborne. Having gone to the crash site
at 0900 hours on 18 September, he observed that the aircraft was still burning and
that there were police present.
54. The fourth new eyewitness at this location (Lumayi Chipoya) stated that she
saw a helicopter with smoke coming out of its tail circling in the area two or three
times, after which it fell down. The witness recalled that she visited the site
shortly after the crash, where she observed police and soldiers present.
55. Two of the 12 new eyewitnesses (Kankasa and Margaret Ngulube) were
located at Twapia (7 km south-east of the crash site), under the flight path of aircraft
approaching to land on runway 10, the runway in use at Ndola airfield on the night
of 17-18 September 1961. The first of these (Kankasa) recounted being called by
her husband, sometime between 2100 and 2200 hours, to quickly come out of the
house to see something happening in the sky. Upon doing so, the witness saw what
she said looked like two army jets pass overhead the house heading toward the
airport. She did not see the large aircraft while it was airborne, but saw flames in the
distance in the direction of the crash site. She did not visit the crash site.
56. The second new eyewitness who was at Twapia (Margaret Ngulube) recalled
seeing two aircraft in the area, one being smaller than the other, between 1800 and
2100 hours. She noted that both aircraft were heading toward the airport from the
west when she saw them. As the small aircraft passed the large aircraft, the wings of
the large aircraft caught fire and then dropped down. The witness stated that she is
not sure where the smaller aircraft went after the large aircraft had disappeared out
of sight. She did not go to the crash site.
57. Three of the new eyewitnesses were located at Chifubu (10 km north-east of
the crash site and five km north-east of the outbound leg of the instrument approach
to Ndola airfield). The first of these (Safeli Mulenga) saw an aircraft coming from
the Congo, between 2000 and 2100 hours, that was larger than normal in size. He
observed the aircraft circling and, on its third round, turning toward the airfield. The
witness stated that the top of the aircraft, but not the wings, then caught fire. He
remarked that it looked as though the fire had come from somewhere else and was
20/99 15-09722
A/70/132
like lightning. The witness did not observe any other aircraft in the air that
evening. He went to the crash site one or two days after the crash, where he
observed markings on the ground where the bodies had been.
58. The second eyewitness located at Chifubu (Emma Mulenga) recalled
observing an aircraft come from the west, sometime between 1900 and 2000 hours,
which caught her attention because it was circling. On its third orbit, she saw a
flash, like lightning, hit the aircraft from above. The top of the aircraft then caught
fire. The fire increased in intensity as the aircraft dropped out of the sky. The
witness did not hear any other sound or see any other aircraft in the vicinity. She did
not go to the crash site.
59. The third eyewitness at this location (Dickson Mwebe) recalled seeing an
aircraft approach the airfield from the east and start to circle at what he estimated to
have been between 1900 and 2000 hours. On its second round, the aircraft was
joined by another, smaller aircraft that he described as a jet because of its speed and
sound. Soon thereafter, the witness saw a flash emanate from the small aircraft
toward the large aircraft, hitting the top of the wings of the large aircraft and
causing it to catch fire. The small aircraft then departed the area toward the
northwest. The witness went to the crash site at approximately 0600 or 0700 hours,
on 18 September, where he observed police and soldiers at the site. He noted that
the site was cordoned off with red tape and that there was red paint on some of the
trees. A body was lying near an anthill.
60. Three new witnesses in other locations also provided statements. The first of
these (Joseph Kalupentala) recounted a story told to him in 1987 by his then boss
(Chikabouya), in which the boss stated he was detained and threatened by armed
white soldiers when he visited the crash site on the night of 17-18 September. The
witness described himself as a smuggler at that time. He stated that his boss had
added that the soldiers were Belgian and had shot down the aircraft.
61. Another of the eyewitnesses in this group (Douglas Mwansa) stated that at
some stage while he was in his house in Kamensho Mpanshi (3 km south-west of
the crash site), on the night of 17-18 September 1961, he heard an aircraft
approaching from the west. After briefly departing, the aircraft returned heading in
the opposite direction, following which he heard an explosion. Upon hearing this,
the witness immediately ran outside, where he found his wife pointing in the
direction of the crash. The witness did not offer any further information about his
observations of the crash sequence, describing his location as being a bit far from
the crash site. He claimed to have gone to the site at around 0700 hours on
18 September, where he observed police present. Further, he noted that the site was
cordoned off and that the bodies had been removed.
62. The third eyewitness in this group (Abraham Kunda) observed an aircraft
circling in the sky three times on the night of 17-18 September. He noted that soon
thereafter the airport lights went out for the remainder of the evening. At around the
time the lights went out, the aircraft was heading toward Ndola Hill (12 km west of
Ndola airfield). The witness then went back into his house, which was located at
Masala, an area he described as being 200 to 300 yards from the airport. He
visited the crash site sometime on the afternoon of 18 September, but did not
provide any observations of that visit.
15-09722 21/99
A/70/132
22/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 23/99
A/70/132
I see a transport plane coming low. All the lights are on. Im going to go
down to make a run on it. Yes, its the Transair DC6. Its the plane. Ive hit it.
There are flames. Its going down. Its crashing.
73. Southall goes on to state that his Communications Watch Officer or another
officer present at the time he encountered the communications told him that a
Belgian pilot known as the Lone Ranger, flying a Fouga Magister aircraft used by
Katangese forces, made the transmission and that the pilot must be waiting for
Hammarskjlds plane. Southall stated that he cannot recall whether he received
the information by listening to an audio recording or reading a transcript thereof. He
recalled hearing or seeing the information approximately seven minutes after the
time of the actual transmission, based on the relay factor. He further stated that he
is not sure whether the information was in French or in English, as he was fluent in
both languages.
74. Southall stated that he heard the recording while stationed at a naval
communications facility of the National Security Agency (NSA), located near
Nicosia (approximately 5,000 km north of Ndola), Cyprus. He described his
position at the station as that of a processing and reporting officer and advised
that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the facility with the NSA, although
the working areas of the two agencies were separate. While Southall usually only
worked during daytime hours, on this particular day his Communications Watch
Officer telephoned him at his accommodation, sometime between 1900 and 2100
hours (local time in Cyprus), to encourage him to come to the facility at about
midnight [because] something interesting is going to happen. It was shortly after
midnight when Southall heard the intercept at the station. He stated that the
communications intercept was made by the CIA and passed to the NSA working
area, where he was in the company of four or five others when he heard the
recording or read the transcript, including that of junior officer and friend, Tyler Wat.
75. Southalls recollections of the events of that night appear to have surfaced
when he was contacted by an analyst at the United States Department of State,
Karen Engstrom, on 8 December 1992, in connection with a request from the
Government of Sweden for assistance with its national investigation into the
circumstances of Hammarskjlds death. That investigation was headed by Swedish
diplomat, Bengt Rosio.
24/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Sometime later in the evening, he heard someone say over the radio: Here comes
the plane the plane is well lit, followed by someone on another frequency in a
voice he assessed based on the accent as non-American (but not French or Spanish,
he later provided), saying the Americans just shot down a UN plane. He stated
that the transmissions were followed by a significant increase in radio chatter.
78. Abram did not believe he heard any communications from SE-BDY during the
period in question. He was not certain about the time he heard the transmissions, but
advised he was working the late shift at the listening station at the time. The view he
provided was that the UN aircraft, which he assumed was the aircraft on which
Hammarskjld was travelling, had been shot down by ground fire. He assessed the
use of ground fire based on having heard the transmissions on a high frequency
(HF) radio network.
79. While Abram advised that he was the only officer at the station to have
listened to the intercept in real time, he immediately notified others around him
about what he had just heard. Abram claimed that other officers at the post
subsequently listened to a replay of the intercept, which they processed and
forwarded to the relevant recipients. In a book he authored in 2013 titled, Trona
Bloody Trona about a union strike, Abram provided general information regarding
the circumstances of Hammarskjlds death, but did not describe in detail what he
claimed to the Panel to have heard on the night in question. It appears that Abram
first provided the additional information when he contacted the Hammarskjld
Commission, in 2014, by which time that body had concluded its work.
Assessment of authenticity
80. With a view toward exploring further some of the details of Southalls
statements, and to assess the clarity and consistency of his recollections, the Panel
contacted Southall and requested an interview. He replied that he was unable to
oblige due to health reasons.
81. Further, the Panel requested that the competent United States authorities
search for and share with it any relevant information they may have in their
possession pertaining to records or transcripts of radio traffic intercepted or received
on the night of 17-18 September 1961 concerning the landing or approach of an
aircraft at Ndola, Northern Rhodesia, as well as potentially related records of
correspondence between Washington, D.C., and the United States embassies in
Cyprus and Greece, respectively, around the time in question (see appendix 6). The
Panels request was informed by a negative response from the NSA to a Freedom of
Information Act request submitted by the Hammarskjld Commission, dated 16 July
2013, in which the NSA advised that two files in its possession were responsive to
the Commissions request (see A/68/800, para. 15.11). The NSA went on to state
that the files could not be released because doing so could reasonably be expected
to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security and because the
agency is authorized to protect certain information concerning its activities
having determined that such information exists in these documents.
82. In addition, an article published in the Swedish newspaper SvD Nyheter, on
21 November 2014, reported that the Government of the United States afforded to
the Foreign Minister of Sweden at the time, Carl Bildt, access to the two
responsive files following informal talks between the two Governments. The
article quotes Bildt as saying that the information contained in them is trivial and
15-09722 25/99
A/70/132
unimportant. In response to the Panels request for the same information, one
member of the Panel was afforded full access to the two responsive files on the
basis of established bilateral security information-sharing arrangements between the
Governments of the United States and Australia, her State of nationality. The Panel
member examined the information in the two files shown to her and assessed that it
would not help establish the facts of the cause of the plane crash or the cause of the
deaths of former Secretary-General Hammarskjld or the others accompanying him.
She also assessed that it did not contain any information relating to the interception
of communications about an attack on SE-BDY.
83. Further to its request for the information in the two responsive files to be
made available to it, the Panel also requested that the searches by the Government
of the United States include the master schedules (which is to say the inventories of
files and records) of the CIA, FBI and NSA. The Panel went on to express the hope
that any relevant classified documents located can now be declassified, in whole or
in part, and shared with it. In response, the Government of the United States
informed the Panel, in a letter dated 9 June 2015, that its search had not found any
documents matching the description of the materials requested by the Panel, and
that this effort included a search of NSA and CIA records (see appendix 6).
84. Also in connection with its assessment of the authenticity of the information,
the Panel requested that the Government of the United States provide information it
may have in its possession about whether Southall served in the United States Navy
and Abram in the United States Air Force, respectively, and, if so, whether they
were based at the listening stations in Cyprus and Greece, respectively, undertaking
work with the National Security Agency in the capacity they stated at the time in
question. In its response to the Panel of 9 June 2015, the United States Government
confirmed, based on information held by the Department of State, that Southall was
an active member of the United States Navy at the time, but it did not provide any
further information regarding whether he was stationed in Cyprus or about the
capacity in which he was serving with the Navy. At the time of writing, the results
of a search by the Department of Defense for information responsive to the Panels
questions about Southall and Abram remained pending.
85. At the request of the Panel, Abram provided to it copies of his service
discharge record, which state that he was in the United States Air Force at the time
in question working as a voice intercept procedure specialist and interpreter.
The Panel assessed, based on that document, that Abrams claim to have been
employed by the United States Air Force at the time of the crash of SE-BDY
performing in the special duties in which he claims to have been engaged, appear to
be valid. However, while a copy of a second document provided by Abram titled
Education Service Program noted that the last civilian school he attended was
Iraklion Greece, no dates were annotated in the date attended. The Panel was
therefore unable to confirm whether Abram was posted to Iraklion at the time of the
events on 17-18 September 1961.
Type of information
86. With regard to the type of the information provided by Southall and Abram,
both stated that they were in the company of others when they listened to, or in the
case of Southall, perhaps read, the radio communications on the night of
17-18 September 1961. Southall made several attempts in the 1990s to have a
26/99 15-09722
A/70/132
colleague purportedly also present at the station, Tyler Wat, provide his account of
events. According to correspondence, dated 28 July 1993, between Southall and
Wat, who was by then a diplomat at the United States embassy in Rome, Wat told
United States correspondent, Staffan Torsell, that he had no special memory of an
incident on the night of 17-18 September 1961. It does not appear that Southall has
had any further success in his efforts to make contact with other colleagues who
were present at the time or in establishing whether any of those colleagues have
similar recollections as him of the evening. The Panel was informed that Wat has
unfortunately passed away. Without additional information corroborating Southalls
claim to have listened to or read a transcript of a radio communication intercept, the
new information he provided stands as solitary witness information. Similarly,
without independent corroborating information from colleagues at the Iraklion
listening station or some other source, Abrams statement also stands as solitary
witness information.
15-09722 27/99
A/70/132
90. Hammarberg considered the remark made by Southall in his statement to the
Hammarskjld Commission that, its quite chilling; you can hear the gun cannon
firing. In noting that both the radio transmit button and the trigger for the aircraft
weapons system are located on the flight control stick in the Fouga Magister,
Hammarberg questioned the ability of the pilot to transmit on the radio and fire the
cannon simultaneously. He does note, however, that it was possible, though
unorthodox, for a non-flying crew member to make radio transmissions using
buttons on the joystick. Southalls recollection of the use of first person (I) by the
person making the radio transmissions suggests, however, that that person and the
individual firing the aircraft weapons were one and the same. Moreover, if Southall
obtained the information on which his observations are based from a transcript as
opposed to an audio recording, he could not have heard gunfire.
91. Hammarberg also considered the feasibility of intercepting, in Cyprus, radio
transmissions made in Ndola. He stated in this regard that the radio equipment on
board the Katangese Fouga Magister was limited to very high frequency (VHF)
systems only which, due to the propagation properties of such frequencies, are
limited to line-of-sight ranges (approximately 140 km between a ground station and
an aircraft flying at 5,000 feet). Receiving such transmissions in Cyprus or Greece
would thus have required an intermediate receiving and relay station in order to first
receive, then re-transmit a recording or transcript of such communications in Ndola
to the distant listening stations. If the communications were on HF, on the other
hand, it would be possible without the need for a relay station to intercept them in
Cyprus and Greece.
92. The Panel sought its own expert assessment of the possibility that radio
communications in Ndola could have been intercepted by a listening station over
5,000 km away, or whether it was at least possible to receive a recording of
intercepted communications at such a facility over that distance. Chartered
Professional Engineer and member of the Air Navigation Commission of the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Jeff Bollard, concurred with
Hammarbergs findings.
93. To the question of how the VHF communications may have been relayed to the
listening stations, the Panel noted that Royal Rhodesian Air Force Squadron Leader,
John Mussell, reported to the UN Commission, American Dakotas were sitting on
the airfield [in Ndola] with their engines running on the evening of 17 September,
potentially providing a rebroadcast capability. However, the United States Air Force
Air Attach in Pretoria, Lieutenant Colonel Don Gaylor, gave evidence to the
Rhodesian Civilian Aviation Board of Investigation stating that no transmissions
had been made from these aircraft after 1200 Zulu (1400 local time Ndola), on
17 September, until he participated in the search the following day, and that he was
not in contact with SE-BDY during its flight. Nevertheless, the UN Commission
considered the possibility that other aircraft either on the ground at Ndola or in the
air in the vicinity of Ndola could have acted as a relay station for VHF
communications to provide intelligence on the whereabouts of SE-BDY, or simply
to intercept information about the events of the evening. While it found no such
evidence, it could not rule out the possibility.
28/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Probative value
94. In summary, while some of their accounts differ in detail, Southall and Abram
claim to have listened to or read a transcript of radio transmissions late on the
evening of 17-18 September 1961 relating to what they believe was a shooting
attack resulting in the crash of SE-BDY. Aspects of the authenticity of their claims
have yet to be substantiated, including whether they were physically present in the
respective locations at the time of the events and had responsibilities which would
have afforded them access to such information. Neither the Hammarskjld
Commission nor the Panel have been able to identify and obtain corroborating
information from any other persons present at the respective listening posts that
night. In addition, the Government of the United States has not provided supporting
evidence of any records of radio transmissions or related documents. Some
questions also remain for the Panel regarding the credibility of the information with
respect to matters of timing in Southalls claims. This notwithstanding, it is
considered technically feasible that listening posts at both Cyprus and Greece could
have directly intercepted HF transmissions or indirectly intercepted VHF
transmissions relayed via an intermediary station, potentially including Ndola, on
the night of 17-18 September 1961.
95. Overall, the Panel assessed the probative value of the new information
provided by Southall and Abram, in so far as it helps to establish that SE-BDY was
subjected to an aerial or ground attack as moderate.
15-09722 29/99
A/70/132
30/99 15-09722
A/70/132
animal husbandry methods at the time of the crash. He neither gave an indication of
the size of the holes nor their distribution, but conveyed the impression that they
had been made by a machine gun.
103. The Panel noted that the information provided about Ridlers uncles
observations is hearsay conveyed many years after the event. Further, there is no
precision in the information about whether Waddicar made his observations at the
crash site or perhaps later in the hangar at Ndola airport, where the wreckage was
relocated for further examination, nor about the timing of those observations. While
acknowledging that he had previous experience in the Royal Air Force, it is not
clear whether he would have been in a position to make an authoritative assessment
of the cause of any holes in the wreckage. The Panel assessed the probative value of
the information provided by Ridler, in so far as it helps to establish that there were
bullet holes in the wreckage, as nil.
15-09722 31/99
A/70/132
exclusion of an aerial attack (or indeed, for consideration in a later section of this
report, sabotage) could not be reached because not all of the wreckage material had
been examined. This was informed by the Panels expert understanding that
reaching a definitive conclusion through technical analysis requires testing
absolutely all of the material available. Applying this to the assessment of the
claims made by witnesses to have seen bullet holes in the wreckage, the Panel
assessed as moderate the probative value of the information provided by Landin in
so far as it helps to establish that the examination of the aircraft wreckage by
Dr. Frei-Shulzer could not completely rule out the possibility of hostile actions,
such as an aerial or ground attack, as posited by him.
32/99 15-09722
A/70/132
provided to him by the Ndola air traffic controller, and that the Fouga was equipped
with sophisticated radio equipment and radar to enable an accurate air-to-air
intercept by night. Beukels claimed that his Fouga was airborne for two hours. To
assist with the interception of SE-BDY, Beukels claimed that the Ndola air traffic
controller directed SE-BDY to conduct an extra round, thereby adding 30 km to
the flight path. When SE-BDY appeared not to be following his instructions to
divert, Beukels purportedly fired the Fougas machine guns from behind SE-BDY,
inadvertently hitting the DC6s tail plane. Beukels stated that the pilot had lost
control and the aircraft began to wobble and wave before crashing and bursting
into flames.
112. Rather than a recording of Beukels himself describing his story, the tapes
referred to by Smith and OBrien in the Guardian newspaper article were instead a
recording of de Kemoularia translating notes of his interview with Beukels from
French into English in a meeting with Smith, on 17 September 1981. Despite
requests from Rosio for him to do so, de Kemoularia did not provide Rosio with a
copy of the French notes, the tapes or a transcript thereof. Instead, a version of the
story, assumed to be prepared by Smith, was delivered to Rosio after the completion
of his assignment. An early version of the story, as prepared by Smith, was also
located by the Panel amongst the Roy Welenksy papers at the Bodleian Library, in
which Smith wrote to de Kemoularia, on 8 December 1981, explaining how he had
prepared the story following his earlier meeting with de Kemoularia. Also in that
letter, Smith set out areas in which matters needed further clarification and the
proposed next steps. It appears there had been an intention to finalize the story for
public release on the twentieth anniversary of the crash of SE-BDY.
Assessment of authenticity
113. Turning to a probative assessment, the Panel sought the assistance of the
Government of France through a request, submitted on 23 April 2015, for the
competent French authorities to search for and share with it any materials they may
have in their possession relating to the interaction between de Kemoularia and
Beukels, and any other material referring to a Belgian pilot going by the name of
Beukels (see appendix 3). The Panel expressed hope that in light of the passage of
time relevant documents could be declassified, in whole or in part, if required, and
shared with the Panel. Similarly, the Panel requested that the competent authorities
of the Government of Belgium search for and share with the Panel any information
they may have in their possession about the activities of a purported Belgian
national by the name of Beukels who may have been operating as a pilot or
otherwise supporting Katangese forces in or around the Congo in 1961 (see
appendix 2).
114. In its response, dated 2 June 2015, the Government of France advised that a
search of the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International
Development have not resulted in the location of information about a conversation
between de Kemoularia and a Belgian pilot named Beukels concerning the death
of Mr. Dag Hammarskjld. The response added that those archives are public and
not classified. The Government further advised that enquiries made by it to de
Kemoularia about his availability for questioning had established that de
Kemoularia is not available due to his age and current health status. While the
Government of Belgium provided materials in response to several other facets of the
Panels information request to it, at the time of writing it was yet to provide
15-09722 33/99
A/70/132
information about whether it has among its files and records material related to the
possible existence of a pilot by the name of Beukels (see appendix 2).
Probative value
115. The Panel was not able to establish whether Smiths taped recordings of de
Kemoularias dictated notes of his interview with Beukels are still available.
Similarly, the Panel was not able to locate the original notes of de Kemoularias
interview with Beukels. Given de Kemoularias apparently significant interest in
the circumstances of Hammarskjlds death, the Panel found it unexplained that he
did not come forward with this information earlier when it came into his possession.
It is noted that Rosio states in the end notes of his report of 1993 that de Kemoularia
had told the story to senior UN official, Brian Urquhart, in 1968, at which time
Urquhart advised de Kemoularia to inform the police. This was apparently not done.
116. In light of the foregoing, the Panel assessed the probative value of the
information provided by de Kemoularia, Smith and OBrien regarding the
involvement of a Belgian mercenary pilot by the name of Beukels in shooting
down SE-BDY as weak.
Van Risseghem
117. In February 2014, the Government of the United States provided to the
Hammarskjld Commission a declassified cable sent from Leopoldville to
Washington, D.C., dated 18 September 1961, in which the US ambassador in
Leopoldville draws attention to a Belgian pilot he reports possibly shot down
SE-BDY. In the cable, Gullion states, There is possibility [the aircraft carrying Dag
Hammarskjld and the members of the party accompanying him] was shot down by
the single pilot who has harassed UN operations and who has been identified by one
usually reliable source as Vam (rpt VAK) Riesseghel, Belgian, who accepted
training lessons with so called Katanga Air Force. Previously he had been assumed
to be unknown Rhodesian. As long as he is still operational he may paralyze air
rescue operations.
118. The Panel subsequently requested, on 21 and 23 April 2015, respectively, that
the Government of Belgium and the Government of the United States search their
competent authorities for and provide any information they may have in their
possession regarding the activities of Van Risseghem (see appendices 2 and 6,
respectively).
119. Information provided by the Government of Belgium is to the effect that
Hammarskjld sent a telegram to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Belgium, Henri
Spaak, on 16 September, requesting his Governments cooperation in putting to an
end to Van Risseghems criminal acts against the UN and its properties, as well as
attacks against civilians. The Belgian Government, including the Belgian Secret
Service, then conducted an investigation which revealed that Van Risseghem had
returned to Belgium from Kamina, via Zaventhen, on 8 September, where his entry
at the national airport was registered by the immigration authorities. He then left
Lindt, Belgium, on 16 September, indicating that he was returning to Katanga to
resume air services, thence departed Belgium by air for Paris, from where he was to
continue to Katanga. The investigation concluded that Van Risseghem was in
Belgium between 8 and 16 September 1961 and could not have reached the Congo
34/99 15-09722
A/70/132
from Belgium in time to have the flown a Fouga or any other aircraft over or around
Ndola on the night of 17-18 September 1961.
120. Separately, the Government of the United States made available to the Panel a
telegram, dated 22 September 1961, sent from its embassy in Brussels to
Washington, D.C., which notes that, according to Belgian security and intelligence
officials, Van Risseghem was supposed to have signed a receipt on 17 September
for discharge pay received from the Katanga Mission in Brussels. The Belgian
Government noted however that the signed document was an authority for another
person to collect money on his behalf, from the Sabina Solidarity Fund, and that it
was possible he was either still in Brussels or may have already have been in Paris.
121. That said, Belgian authorities were able to establish that Van Risseghem did
not leave Brussels before 16 September 1961, at the earliest, and they could
therefore demonstrate that it would not have been possible for him to reach Katanga
in sufficient time to have carried out the aerial attack on SE-BDY. On that basis, the
Panel assessed the probative value of the information provided by the Government
of the United States in its cable dated 18 September 1961 regarding the involvement
of a Belgian mercenary pilot by the name of Van Risseghem in an aerial attack on
SE-BDY as weak.
Assessment of authenticity
124. To assist with its assessment, the Panel requested, on 28 May 2015, that the
competent United States Government authorities search for and share with the Panel
any information they may have in their possession relating to the claim made by
15-09722 35/99
A/70/132
Culligan. Further, the Panel requested information about whether Culligan was
enlisted in or contracted by the CIA, or other branches of the Government of the
United States, at the time in question, and whether he undertook activities in
connection with the work of the CIA or other Government of the United States
agencies. In addition, the Panel requested any information the United States
Government may have about whether Culligan possessed the knowledge and
expertise required to fly an aircraft on a mission of the nature he described.
125. The United States Government advised, in its letter dated 9 June, that it had
reviewed its records documenting CIA activities at the time in question and found
no reference to Mr. Culligan. The Panel was unable to locate information about
whether the matter involving Culligan was dealt with by the Church Committee and,
if so, how.
Assessment of credibility
126. The Panel noted that Culligans claim lacks detailed information about how he
shot down SE-BDY, including his means of acquiring the aircraft and the methods
used to enable him to intercept SE-BDY over Ndola. In addition, the claim does not
appear to have been first divulged by Culligan until 1976, when he was seeking to
be released from goal. In correspondence to the then Director of the CIA, Admiral
Stanfield Turner, dated 30 October 1978, Culligan claims to have already provided
Admiral Turner with his journal, but threatens to publically release his material,
including a copy of the journal, unless what he describes as his unfair prosecution
by the authorities is addressed. However, in subsequent correspondence from Farrell
to Agent Albergine, United States Secret Service, dated 6 December 1978, Farrell
claims that he has amassed enough evidence even without a copy of the journal, to
convince anyone what has been going on all these years. It is noted that a similar
threat was previously made to the CIA General Counsel, Anthony Lapham, in March
1977, shortly before Culligans release from prison. It was not apparent to the Panel
that the information was ever released in full as proposed and whether it included
the diary to which Culligan referred.
127. In the absence of additional information confirming his qualifications and
account of events, including as claimed to have been detailed in a diary, the Panel
assessed as weak the probative value of the information provided by Pease
regarding the degree to which the information helps to establish the involvement of
purported CIA agent, Roland Bud Culligan, in an aerial attack on SE-BDY.
36/99 15-09722
A/70/132
13 to 27 September 1961. He stated that he was not a pilot and had no role in the
Katanga air forces. The UN investigation concluded that Gilsons testimony was
truthful and verifiable, and that the allegations were unfounded. Further, it found
that his whereabouts on the night of 17-18 September 1961 could be accounted for
and that he lacked the training and information needed to be able to carry out such
an attack.
129. On the basis that those involved in the UN interrogation were able to
independently verify the whereabouts of Gilson on the night in question, the Panel
assessed the probative value of the new information regarding the degree to which it
helps establish that he was involved in an aerial attack on SE-BDY as nil.
15-09722 37/99
A/70/132
Probative value
134. Taking into account all the above, in particular the serious nature of the
allegations; Friedmanns reluctance to testify at the Rhodesian Commissions
hearing for his version to be fully tested, while being fully aware that he was
requested to do so; and Major Delins categorical denial before the Rhodesian
Commission to have said what Friedmann claimed, the Panel assessed the
information provided by Friedmann regarding the degree to which it helps to
establish that the two Belgian pilots under consideration, who of whom appears to
have been Major Delin, was involved in an aerial attack on SE-BDY as nil.
38/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Commission of Inquiry that on one occasion near Kamina he had shot at a DC3
aircraft while it was airborne with a burst [of bullets].
138. In new information related to the ability of a Fouga to have been able to carry
out an attack or otherwise threaten SE-BDY, aircraft accident investigator and
former fighter pilot, Hammarberg, expressed serious doubts about the jets capacity
to have launched from and returned to Kolwezi in one sortie due to the limit of its
maximum combat range (calculated as 419 km, flying at 5,000ft). He noted that
while it is theoretically possible to fly between the two locations, this would only
afford approximately five minutes of combat manoeuvring time over Ndola. The
pilot would thus have required very accurate information about the route and arrival
time of SE-BDY, and timed his or her arrival for the intercept accordingly.
139. The Panel noted that recorded information with Salisbury Flight Information
Centre indicates that, at 2002 hours (Zulu), SE-BDY was estimating an arrival time
at Ndola at 2235 hours (Zulu). When it first contacted Ndola tower at 2135 hours
(Zulu), the estimated arrival time for Ndola was then 2220 hours (Zulu). The actual
arrival time overhead the airfield was known to be 2210 hours (Zulu) based on a
report from SE-BDY to the Ndola tower on VHF frequency 119.1 and as noted on
the flight progress strip by Martin, the Ndola tower controller. Testimony by a
number of witnesses to the official inquiries is consistent with this reported arrival
time. On the basis of the 25 minute variation in estimated and actual arrival times,
the Panel finds it difficult, in the absence of elaborate support arrangements that
might have provided more accurate intelligence, including with the use of radar, to
accept that a Fouga could have timed its arrival at Ndola from Kolwezi to enable it
to intercept SE-BDY while still leaving sufficient fuel to return to Kolwezi in one
sortie. However, like the UN Commission, Hammarberg does not completely rule
out the possibility a Fouga could have used another airport closer to Ndola, either as
a temporary operational base or for the purposes of refuelling.
140. In considering other airfields available for use by a Fouga, Rosio noted that
with a full fuel load, the aircraft would require a take-off distance of approximately
1,500 metres. He was informed by Captain von Rosen, a pilot then flying for
Transair with extensive experience of piloting in Africa, that apart from Kolwezi
and Kipushi [200 km north-west of Ndola], there were four other airports from
which a Fouga could have taken off and reached Ndola. Separately, Hammarberg
refers to a report prepared by the Swedish Air Force, dated December 1961, which
states that no appropriate places are likely to be found in [Katanga] south of
Elisabethville from which a jet aircraft could operate, but that the possibility
simpler airfields can be used by jet aircraft is not precluded.
141. In undated correspondence titled, Secret: Report by Neil Ritchie, the First
Secretary at the British High Commission in Salisbury and MI6 officer, Neil
Ritchie, refers to a trip to Kipushi, on 17 September 1961, in which notes that he
inspected the runway and deemed it to be approximately 800 yards long
(approximately 730 metres). He described it as being very rough, overgrown and
with anthills at one end. He asked (Belgian mining company) Union Minire
personnel to put a steamroller over it and start demolishing the anthills. At a
subsequent visit to Kipushi, on 19 September, he observed Union Miniere workers
demolishing the anthills. If Ritchies observations were accurate, the length of the
runway and its poor surface condition would probably have ruled out the possibility
15-09722 39/99
A/70/132
of a Fouga launching from that location, which was an airfield identified by Rosio
as possibly useable by the Fouga.
142. Aviation expert, Hammarberg, analyses the ability of a Fouga to carry out an
aerial attack at night, drawing from his own experience as a fighter pilot. Regarding
the equipment and other limitations of the Fouga aircraft, Hammarbergs analysis is
based on the generic information contained in Fouga aircraft manuals. Hammarberg
notes, however, that he did not have first-hand information, however, about the
particular equipment of, and support arrangements for, the Fougas used by the
Katanga air force at the time in question. That notwithstanding, he concludes that
the hypothesis that a Fouga aircraft could be used for an aerial attack at night in the
circumstances that prevailed on the 17-18 September 1961 lacks credibility.
143. While the Panel noted that it would have been extremely difficult for a Fouga
Magister to have carried out an aerial attack at night on SE-BDY because of the
Fougas aforementioned operational limitations, the new information from
Hammarberg and Rosio supports the possibility that a Fouga Magister was capable
of perpetrating such an attack or threat and may have used airfields other than
Kolwezi, including unpaved airfields within range of Ndola. This is not to say that
their information supports the proposition that a Fouga was actually used to carry
out the attack on SE-BDY.
144. The Panel assessed the extent to which the new information provided by
Hammarberg and Rosio helps to establish that a Fouga Magister could have been
used to bring down SE-BDY in an aerial attack over Ndola airfield at night as weak.
De Havilland Dove
145. In a report dated 23 January 1962, Transair official, Bo Virving, outlines his
assertion that a De Havilland Dove brought down SE-BDY through an aerial attack
involving firing of rockets from the Dove onto or near the DC6 as it made its
approach to land at Ndola airfield. The assertion was based almost entirely on his
interpretation of the witness observations on the night in question, in particular as
they relate to the presence of a second aircraft in the air and to fire passing from
one aircraft to another. Given that the letter is dated prior to the conclusion of the
UN Commissions inquiry, and that the Commission consulted Virving at various
stages throughout its investigation, including on the matter of Virvings assertion
that a Dove could have been used, the Panel assessed that the information is not new
according to its definition. While not referring to the use of a De Havilland Dove
specifically, the UN Commission noted that Virving put before it a theory that
SE-BDY might have been attacked and shot down by a plane armed with rockets,
that no substantial evidence was submitted in support of this theory and the
Commission is of the opinion that most of the phenomena referred to by Virving are
susceptible of other and more logical explanations.
146. That notwithstanding, the Panel identified new information related to whether
a Dove aircraft could have been capable of carrying out an aerial attack on SE-BDY.
In his memoirs, Mercenary Commander (1986), as told by Brian Pottinger, former-
mercenary pilot Jerry Puren states that De Havilland Dove aircraft were in use by
the Katangese air force as early as 1961 and were capable of bombing ground
targets. Puren goes on to outline the technical aspects of this capability, noting that
the Dove was modified by the Katangese air force to enable bombs to be dropped
from racks through the floor of the aircraft. He also described bombing sorties in
40/99 15-09722
A/70/132
which he claimed to have been involved; however, his memoir did not include
reference to any sorties flown on the night of 17-18 September 1961.
147. In his analysis of the capability of a De Havilland Dove to carry out an aerial
attack on SE-BDY, Hammarberg acknowledged that Doves were in use by the
Katanga air force at the time, although he is unsure about how many were
operational. The Rhodesian Commission of Inquiry had determined that two Doves
were in United Nations custody at Elisabethville, on the night of 17-18 September,
while three others were in South Africa undergoing maintenance. Other sources
claimed that Doves were based at Kolwezi or Kapushi. In addition, Hammarberg
assessed that because of physical and skill constraints, the theory that a Dove
could have been used to carry out an air-to-air bombing attack using rockets or a
bomb as practically impossible. He cited the difficulty of carrying out a manual
bomb operation (whether in order to hit the aircraft or to have a bomb explode near
to the aircraft) on a moving airborne target at night.
148. The Panel also noted that the maximum cruising speed of a Dove aircraft is
approximately 180 to 200 knots (333 to 370 km/h) making it only possible for a
Dove to have been able to intercept SE-BDY, a DC6B, in a phase of flight in which
the DC6Bs speed is much lower than its normal cruise speed of approximately
270 knots (500 km/h). This would be possible when SE-BDY was preparing to
approach and land at Ndola. Noting that the Rhodesian Board of Investigation had
determined that SE-BDY was found to be in a landing configuration at the time of
impact with the ground; it would therefore have been travelling somewhere between
130 and 160 knots (240 to 296 km/h).
149. While it is noted that Purens memoirs do not describe any sorties involving
air-to-air attacks by a Dove, and Hammarberg is extremely sceptical that such an
attack could have been successfully conducted, this alone may not preclude the
possibility that a Dove was capable of such an attack or for its use in an aerial threat
to SE-BDY such as an attempt to divert the SE-BDY elsewhere. However, without
supporting evidence, it does little to support the proposition that a Dove was
actually used to carry out the attack on SE-BDY. The Panel assessed as weak the
degree to which the new information provided by Puren helps to establish that a De
Havilland Dove could have, in terms of its offensive air capability, carried out an
aerial attack or otherwise threatened SE-BDY.
15-09722 41/99
A/70/132
42/99 15-09722
A/70/132
17-18 September. However, without supporting evidence, the information does little
to support the proposition that a DO-17 or DO-28 was actually used to carry out the
attack on SE-BDY. The Panel assessed the probative value of the new information
alleging that a Dornier DO-27 or DO-28 could have carried out an aerial attack or
otherwise threatened SE-BDY as weak.
15-09722 43/99
A/70/132
161. In a hand written instruction bearing the same letterhead as the remainder of
the documents, dated 14 September 1961, Captain reports back to Commodore
that a:
DC6 aircraft bearing Transair livery is parked at Leo[poldville] to be used
for transport of subject. Our technician has order to plant 6lbs tnt in the wheel
bay with contact detonat (sic) to activate as wheels are retracted on taking of.
We are awaiting subjects time of departure before acting.
162. Another of the documents, the date of which is not clearly legible, which
seemingly provides a report back to Commodore and Captain on events, a
Congo Red writes:
1. Device failed on take-off.
2. Dispatched Eagle [illegible] to [illegible].
3. [Illegible] activated [illegible] prior to landing.
4. As advised OBrien and McKeown were not on board.
5. Mission accomplished: satisfactory.
Assessment of authenticity
163. An analysis of the authorship and authenticity of the documents, that is
whether they were written by their purported author, SAIMR or its officers or
agents, and that they are genuinely what they purport to be or to assert therein is
required by the Panel in assigning probative value to them. In that connection, the
Panel first sought to establish the authenticity of the documents. Further, the Panel
noted that the abbreviation of the name of the organisation varied in one document,
which uses SAIMAR as opposed to SAIMR. Efforts by the Hammarskjld
Commission and Dr. Williams to obtain the originals or ascertain through expert
technical analysis the authenticity of the versions in their possession were
unsuccessful. For its part, the Panel submitted a request to the Government of the
Republic of South Africa to search for and share with it any records or other
materials relating to the documents; any references to the existence at the time in
question of the South African Institute for Maritime Research (SAIMR); or any
other materials it may have in its possession that either negates or corroborates
information about the purported plan (see appendix 5). At the time of writing, a
response from the Government of the Republic of South Africa was yet to be
received.
164. In addition, the Panel contacted the former Truth and Reconciliation
Commission Chief Investigator to enquire about whether he has any recollections
that could assist with an assessment of the documents authenticity. At the time of
writing, no information had yet been received by the Panel. The Panel was therefore
unable to establish the authority or the authenticity of the documents, of which it
had only poor quality copies.
165. Also in relation to authenticity, another question arises, that being whether
SAIMR existed in 1961. On this issue, the Hammarskjld Commission found that,
Very little can be ascertained about the South African Institute of Maritime
Research, and that, The Commission has been unable to trace any scientific
research published by it.
44/99 15-09722
A/70/132
166. The absence of the original documents; the existence of SAIMR in 1961 not
having been established; the non-availability of the maker of those documents or
parts thereof, or anyone with personal knowledge or familiarity with their contents;
the unexplained whereabouts and chain of possession of the documents between the
time they were allegedly made in 1961 and their handing over to the South Africa
Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the South African Intelligence Services, in
July 1998, and their eventual public disclosure; and the uncertainty of the
genuineness of photocopies and the discrepancies therein, including in the very title
of SAIMR in one, enhance the significant doubt the Panel has about their
authenticity.
167. Further to its assessment of probative value, the Panel also examined the
documents content, which is to say the feasibility of the alleged plot. Here it noted
that the UN Commission stated in its report, in the absence of a special guard
having been posted at SE-BDY while it was on the ground in Leopoldville, the
possibility of an unauthorized approach to the aircraft for the purpose of sabotage
cannot be ruled out. Moreover, in their statements to the official inquiries, the
Swedish aircraft technicians working on SE-BDY on 17 September advised that the
aircraft was left unattended for one to one and a half hours while they proceeded on
a lunch break and, moreover, one of the mechanics (Nils Arne Ohlsson) recalled
noting when he went to load luggage onto the aircraft in the afternoon the front
cargo hold, which could be accessed from outside the aircraft, was not locked.
15-09722 45/99
A/70/132
or foreign bullets were detected in the wreckage of SE-BDY, the possibility traces
of such materials escaped detection cannot be ruled out.
170. In so far as further testing for traces of explosives is concerned, according to
the Diary of Events enclosed in the report of the Rhodesian Commission of Inquiry,
the wreckage of SE-BDY was removed from hanger and buried at Ndola airport,
on 22 and 23 August 1962, where it remains today. In the Panels view, further
testing is not possible since the Dr. Frei-Shulzers examination of the wreckage by
melting down the metal wreckage and parts will have made it impossible to now
carry out chemical tests for traces of explosives materials, which would have been
the preferred procedure. Moreover, the Panel has not been able to find any reference
to examples of aircraft wreckage or material of that nature undergoing such testing
after having been buried for more than 50 years, and particularly not after the
material has been cut into pieces (which is the case for the wreckage of SE-BDY),
melted down and buried in sand or soil.
171. Turning to the available expert medico-legal analysis, the Panel noted the joint
opinion of distinguished pathologists, Drs. Rammer, Busch and James, who stated in
their report to the Hammarskjld Commission of 24 July 2013 that they could
conclude there was no evidence from the autopsy reports that Hammarskjld had
been subjected to an explosion or exposed to smoke (see para. 34).
Probative value
172. In terms of an overall assessment of the probative value of the SAIMR
documents, weighing the considerations spelt out earlier, in particular their
authenticity; the unknown whereabouts of the originals or anyone who has ever seen
them or any reliable secondary substitute; their chain of possession, together with
the possibility of the placement and planting of a 6 lb bomb on board the aircraft;
events which in the then prevailing conditions and circumstances could have taken
place; the time SE-BDY was left unguarded; and parts of the aircraft exposed to the
risk of interference while at Leopoldville airport on 17 September 1961, the Panel
assigned weak probative value to the SAIMR documents and what they purport to
assert.
46/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Panel by letter, on 23 April 2015, however, that none of the interlocutors had
responded to his communications.
174. Regarding an assessment of the information, the Panel noted that, in the
absence of supporting information from personnel with first-hand knowledge of the
alleged events, the information constitutes hearsay on the part of Wood from
Brichant. Moreover, Brichant was interviewed by the official inquires yet did not
mention the claim put forth by Wood. The Panel assessed the probative value of the
information provided by Wood in so far as it purports to prove that Romanian
embassy personnel planted a bomb on SE-BDY as weak.
15-09722 47/99
A/70/132
178. A second ballistics expert, a Detective Inspector and Firearms Examiner at the
National Centre of Forensic Services in Denmark, Egon Poulsen, evaluated the
high-resolution images and concurred with the findings of the Panel member. In
particular, he assessed that the holes in the plate (including the four closely located
together), appear to all be placed, which is to say located as if their positions were
measured out. None of the holes appear to be bullet holes, even the four closely
located together. In terms of size and appearance (and in terms of location), the
holes do not look as though they were created by bullets.
179. In light of the NTSB assessment that it is unlikely that the piece of material is
from an aircraft, and the Danish expert assessments that the holes in the plate are
not consistent with bullet holes, the Panel assessed the probative value of the new
information associated with the metal plate, which related to the possible presence
of bullet holes in a piece of aircraft wreckage, as nil.
Incendiary device
180. In other new information about the possibility SE-BDY crashed due to
sabotage, reference is made in a Washington Post report, on 3 June 1978, to an
investigative article that refers to a CIA report purportedly submitted to President
Kennedy in 1962 stating, There is evidence collected by our technical field
operatives that the explosive device aboard the aircraft was of standard KGB
incendiary design. No further information was provided beyond this short passage.
181. To enable an assessment of the probative value of the information, the Panel
requested that the United States Government search its files and records for the
presence of any information about the existence and basis of the alleged CIA report,
or other CIA reports or related information it may have in its possession that would
shed light on the circumstances surrounding the crash of the flight of SE-BDY. The
United States Government replied, on 9 June 2015, that the CIA has found no such
report or any record of such a report. Further, the United States Government advised
that a search of the files and records at the John F. Kennedy Library also has no
information related to the alleged report.
182. Regarding an expert technical assessment of the feasibility of the action
described in the information, explosives expert, Major Perkins, states in his report
to the Hammarskjld Commission that it would be technically possible to cause an
aircraft to crash by activating an incendiary device (as opposed to explosive
materials). He notes that the pyrophoric material in such a device would help to start
a fire on board the aircraft, which would then be fuelled by the aluminium alloy in
the airframe and the aircrafts fuel. That notwithstanding, in the absence of
information about the basis of the information in the Washington Post article or
more detailed information about the claim that could be tested further, the Panel
assessed the new information about an incendiary device planted on the aircraft as
claimed above as having nil probative value.
48/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 49/99
A/70/132
themselves, it did receive new material about the possible role of crew fatigue in the
crash. A summary and assessment of the probative value of that new material is set
out below. The Panel wishes to emphasise that the possible role of crew fatigue does
not in and of itself explain the cause of the crash or the extent to which, if at all,
fatigue was a contributing factor in the range of possible causes of the crash of
SE-BDY. Nevertheless, flight crew fatigue has the potential to adversely affect the
crews situational awareness as well its ability to react to and manage a range of
abnormal and emergency situations including but not limited to an aerial attack or
external threat, sabotage, hi-jacking or technical failure.
Crew fatigue
189. A common thread in all three of the official inquiries was the reliance on the
belief that the aircraft captain, Per Hallonquist, was fit to fly on the day of the
incident and therefore the inquiries could largely rule out fatigue as a factor in the
crash. At the same time, the inquiries appeared to have largely ignored the possible
fatigue levels of the other flight crew members and their consequential impacts on
the overall performance of the flight crew. The Rhodesian Board of Investigation, in
its discussion of the evidence, noted that SE-BDY pilots Litton and Arheus had
flown to Elisabethville on the night of 16 September, while Hallonquist had
appeared rested and most anxious to make the flight. The Rhodesian Commission
of Inquiry noted that when Litton had boarded the aircraft he indicated that he was
tired, while Hallonquist seemed to be fit and relaxed. The UN Commission noted
that there were three experienced pilots on board, at least one of whom had had
24 hours of rest prior to the flight, that there was sleeping accommodation on board
for the pilots, and it was therefore satisfied that the accident was not due to pilot
fatigue.
190. New information set out in a document prepared by Ulf Strid, dated
18 December 1961, contains an analysis of the flight and duty times of the crew of
SE-BDY. The analysis was informed by Transairs flight log data for the pilots,
Hallonquist, Litton and Arheus, and for the flight engineer, Willhelmssen, and
reconciled with Transairs Flight Operations Manual and relevant collective
agreements. The analysis was an appendix to a larger document signed by Ake
Landin, L. Lindman and Torsten Nylen. The Panel noted that Landin and Lindman
were the accredited representative and the technical advisor, respectively, to the
Rhodesian Board of Investigation. Strid noted in the document that: (a) Hallonquist
had logged no flying hours from 13 to 16 September, while Litton and Arheus had
logged 8.8 hours each on 13 and 14 September, and no flying hours on
15 and 16 September; and (b) in the 24 hours preceding the crash of SE-BDY, both
Litton and Arheus had flown as much as 16.8 of those 24 hours (all logged as night
hours), while Hallonquist had flown 6.3 hours (all night hours).
191. It was Strids view that, in accordance with Transairs Flight Operations
Manual, flight time exceedances had occurred in the 24 hour period leading up to
the crash. Strid stated that, it does not seem possible Litton and Arheus were able
to accumulate a sufficient amount of sleep during the last twenty four hours. Strid
further stated that Hallonquist, on the other hand, appeared to have had opportunity
for sufficient rest in the same period. Flight Engineer Willhelmssen had also flown
as much as 16.8 hours in the preceding 24 hour period, having been on the same
flight as Litton and Arheus to Elisabethville on the night prior to 17-18 September.
Further, Strid identified a number of occasions in the period 1 August to
50/99 15-09722
A/70/132
17 September when one or more of the three pilots had exceeded flight time
limitations. Strid noted also that his analysis was of flight times only, as opposed to
of crew duty times (which include pre- and post-flight duties as well as airborne
time), which he stated the Sweden Civil Aviation Authority was not obliged to
monitor.
192. It would be expected that analysis of this kind would have been conducted
following the crash in accordance with Swedens obligation as the State of Registry
under the Chicago Convention to provide any relevant information regarding the
aircraft and the flight crew involved to the State of Occurrence (Rhodesia)
(Chicago Convention, appendix 13, para. 4.6).
193. In other new information, a former flight surgeon attached to the Swedish Air
Force, Dr. Ake Hassler, informed the Panel in correspondence, dated 12 May 2015,
that he believed the Ndola crash in September 1961 was an ordinary pilot error
accident. Dr. Hassler was tasked by the Swedish Department of Defence in the
1960s to conduct investigations of all Swedish flight accidents, in which he
included the crash of SE-BDY. He went on to state in his correspondence that he
believed the primary factor contributing to the crash of SE-BDY was that a large
part of the crew was fatigued. He attributed the fatigue to insufficient rest in the
36 hours prior to the flight to Ndola, going so far as to state that the crew were
therefore not fit to fly their mission on the night of 17-18 September 1961. Other
information provided by Hassler included a document prepared by Bengt-Ake
Bengs, dated 29 September 1966, in which, among other things, Bengs has cited and
commented on the same information that was prepared by Strid. Dr. Hassler claimed
that the Swedish authorities did not bring this matter sufficiently to the attention of
the Rhodesian Board of Investigation. He went on to state that he has made a
number of attempts to bring this matter to the attention of the United Nations
through the Swedish authorities, but that his efforts had been blocked by those
authorities.
Probative assessment
194. Even today, with the benefit of a significantly greater body of knowledge than
was available in 1961-1962, the effects of fatigue on flight crew performance
remain a complex issue. The study of human and organisational factors and its
contribution to aircraft accidents accelerated significantly during the late 1970s
following accidents involving large commercial aircraft that resulted in significant
loss of life and which ushered in an era of research focused on crew resource
management and command training. Nevertheless, it was already recognized in
1961 that aircrew must be fit for duty to ensure that they were able to operate their
aircraft safely in a range of conditions; this included through the implementation of
practices to manage fatigue.
195. The ICAO definition of fatigue states that it is a physiological state of
reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss or
extended wakefulness, circadian phase, or workload (mental and/or physical
activity) that can impair a crew members alertness and ability to safely operate an
aircraft or perform safety related duties. SE-BDY, a DC6B, was, in its time, a
complex and highly demanding aircraft to operate requiring a minimum of three
crew members (two pilots and a flight engineer). In a multi-crew operation, all
members of the crew must work as a team, with clearly defined duties and
15-09722 51/99
A/70/132
52/99 15-09722
A/70/132
logged, based on the information before the Panel, there appears to have been scant
or no analysis of the rest time and other activities of the crew outside of those flight
hours in order to establish the quality and quantity of rest that was taken during the
days and hours leading up to the departure of SE-BDY, and of other personal factors
that might have had any adverse effects on their performance. Such additional
analysis would have provided a fuller picture regarding the crews fitness for duty to
undertake the mission given to them on that night. It is noted that contemporary
practices for the management of flight crew fatigue embrace a more holistic and
risk-based approach that would include both institutional and self-monitoring of
flight crew fitness for duty.
Probative value
200. The Panel assessed the probative value of the information provided by Strid in
so far as it helps to shed additional light on whether fatigue was a contributing
factor to the crash of SE-BDY as moderate. Separately, the information provided by
Hassler, in so far as it relates to analysis and comments on the flight times of the
crew of SE-BDY, constituted a secondary source. In the absence of other supporting
documentation made available to the Panel, such as a contemporaneous record of
his analysis of the crash of SE-BDY in response to his purported assignment, the
Panel assessed the probative value of the information provided by Dr. Hassler in so
far as it helps to shed additional light on whether fatigue was a contributing factor
to the crash of SE-BDY as weak.
201. However, in the absence of other supporting evidence that may have been able
to shed light on this issue, fatigue, to the extent that it may have been a contributing
factor, will be difficult to link to and explain the conditions and circumstances
resulting in the tragic death of former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjld and of
the members of the party accompanying him. SE-BDY was not equipped with a
cockpit voice recorder (CVR). According to ICAO Standards and Recommend
Practices (SARPS) in place at the time, no requirements for the fitment of CVRs
were prescribed. With regard to flight data recorders, which record several
parameters of an aircraft such as airspeed, altitude, and rate of climb or descent, in a
defined period immediately before an aircraft crash, the SARPS recommended that
piston-engine aircraft such as SE-BDY only be equipped with such recorders as
required by the State of Registry (ICAO Appendix 6 Recommended Practice 6.3.2).
It was also not mandatory to have recording facilities on all aerodrome control
service air-ground communications channels such as the tower at Ndola (ICAO
Appendix 11 Recommended Practice 6.1.4.3). Finally, but for Harold Julien, who
did not provide any information about the crew prior to or during the flight in the
period between the crash and his tragic death, there were no surviving witnesses
from onboard the aircraft and it is unlikely that other witness can now be identified
who could provide accurate information about the crews rest periods and other
activities outside of their flying duties prior to the flight on the night of
17-18 September.
15-09722 53/99
A/70/132
54/99 15-09722
A/70/132
establish radio contact with Kamina airfield, where the Air Traffic Controller was
also Swedish, so the two stations could exchange information without other,
non-Swedish speaking operators being able to understand it. The Air Traffic
Controller at Kamina was reportedly knowledgeable about the aircraft approach
procedure information for Ndola Airfield.
206. Regarding its assessment, the Panel questioned why the information was
seemingly not provided to UN officials as soon as the individuals at Kamina
realized that something was wrong or, failing that, the other official enquiries or the
UN Commission. The Panel assessed the probative value of the information in so far
as it helps to establish that the crew of SE-BDY were passed the wrong altimeter
setting by Ndola Control Tower as nil.
15-09722 55/99
A/70/132
56/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Mast-Ingle and Mwansa), it was too dangerous to do so because the wreckage was
still burning (Ngongo, Mwebe, Chimema) or that there was heavy smoke.
215. However, some of the observations of three of the six new witnesses about the
time the victims bodies were removed and the manner and time at which the site
was cordoned off were inconsistent with other known facts about the status of the
crash site at the times they claimed to have been there. This suggests that some of
these witnesses may in fact have travelled to the site after 1510 hours, by which
time recovery and investigation activities were well underway. One of the witnesss
(Custon Chipoya) reference to pieces of the aircraft having been removed may be
able to be explained by the fact that so much of the aircraft had been totally
destroyed by the crash sequence and the conflagration such that it appeared as if
parts of the aircraft had been removed.
216. By definition, none of the new eyewitness accounts are contemporaneous.
Further, the general factors affecting the probative value of eyewitness information
outlined by the Panel in paragraphs 62 to 66 above apply to the information
provided by the new eyewitnesses here. The Panel assessed the degree to which the
information provided by the new eyewitnesses helps to establish that the wreckage
was found by the authorities prior to 1510 hours, the time presented in their official
accounts, as moderate in the case of two eyewitnesses (Chimema and Lumayi
Chipoya) and weak in the case of four eyewitnesses (Custon Chipoya, Maste-Ingle,
Mwebe and Ngongo).
15-09722 57/99
A/70/132
1510 hours local time. This appears to suggest that Lord Landsdowne knew that the
aircraft had crashed and that Hammarskjld was dead prior to the official accounts
of when the wreckage was discovered by Rhodesian (or any other) authorities. In
assessing the probative value of the information the Panel noted that the persons
involved were of a seniority and level of responsibility that they would likely have
been kept up-to-date about the search and rescue efforts. However, the information
is not contemporaneous and, as far as the issue of possible official collusion is
concerned, does nothing more than suggest that the officials covered-up that the
crash site was discovered before 1510 hours (local time). The Panel assessed in that
regard the probative value of the information as moderate.
58/99 15-09722
A/70/132
have identified any pertinent material. It further noted that after having
commissioned a review of all of the retained material in question to determine
whether this can now be released, that review has determined that the Government
of the United Kingdom is not in a position to release any of it due to security-related
reasons. It further noted that the redactions consist of individual pieces of text
within otherwise open files and that the total amount retained is very small and
consists of only a few words (see appendix 7).
15-09722 59/99
A/70/132
(d) SE-BDY was fired upon or other otherwise actively engaged by other
aircraft present while approaching Ndola.
228. That value was assessed on the basis that, notwithstanding factors affecting the
reliability of eyewitness observations over the passage of time, they represent first-
hand accounts of what they genuinely believed they saw (or heard) and lend weight
to the witness accounts provided to the official inquiries.
60/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 61/99
A/70/132
62/99 15-09722
A/70/132
SE-BDY, which could have caused it descend to a dangerously low altitude, as this
contention was neither reported to the United Nations or the troop-contributing
country to which he belonged, in a timely fashion or at all, until he later disclosed it
in his memoirs.
250. The Panel assigned moderate probative value to the new information that
communications sent from the CX-52 cryptographic machine used by Hammarskjld
during his visit to the Congo were intercepted by intelligence agencies based on the
preliminary information provided to the Hammarskjld Commission, on 6 March
2013, by the brother-in-law of the founder of Crypto AG, the Swiss company that
produced the machine.
Conclusions
251. The corpus of the new information and its probative value on the possible
causes of death of Hammarskjld and of some of the members of the party
accompanying him does not discredit the propriety, findings and conclusions of the
original post-mortem examination of the occupants of SE-BDY.
252. The Panel is of the view that, if any further inquiries into this matter are
agreed to by the General Assembly, little will be gained by subjecting the surviving
eyewitnesses that reside in Zambia to additional questioning. Their testimony, in so
far as it is now part of the official UN record, would remain available to be tested
against the body of the current information and any new information that may come
to light in the future.
253. The Hammarskjld Commission recommended that the initial purpose of
reopening the UN Commissions investigation of 1961-1962 was to confirm or
refute, based on the disclosure of communications intercept records, evidence
indicating that the crash of SE-BDY was brought about by some form of attack or
aerial threat. In particular, that Commission considered it important for the Panel to
pursue with the US Government the disclosure of the two documents reported by the
NSA to be responsive to its request but which remained exempt from disclosure
due to their classification. One member of the Panel was afforded full access to the
two responsive files and assessed that the information contained therein would not
help to establish the facts of the cause of the aircraft crash or the cause or causes of
the tragic deaths. The Panel member also assessed that it did not contain any
information relating to the interception of communications about an attack on
SE-BDY. Despite the submission of other specific information requests by the Panel
to certain Member States, those States that have responded have advised that they
were unable to locate any documents responsive to the requests. However, this is a
line of inquiry that the Panel considers has not yet been exhausted.
254. Since the conclusion of the UN Commissions inquiry, there have been several
claims made by mercenaries, or their interlocutors, and other agents that they shot
or otherwise forced down SE-BDY in an aerial attack. Most of the new information
before the Panel on this matter lacks credibility.
255. Based on information the Panel has reviewed during its mandate, it appears
that United Nations information sources may have underestimated the level of
resources that were available to Katanga at the time of the events of
17-18 September, including with regard to the number and types of aircraft that
were in use. Nevertheless, information regarding the Fouga Magister, the
15-09722 63/99
A/70/132
De Havilland Dove and the Dornier DO-27 and DO-28, speak only to the capability
of those aircraft to perpetrate an aerial attack or threat. The information does not
help to support the proposition that one of those aircraft types was actually involved
in an aerial attack or threat on SE-BDY on the night in question.
256. The claim about a possible sabotage of SE-BDY by the installation or planting
of explosives or other such incendiary devices is weakly supported by the body of
new information.
257. Collectively examined by the Panel, the sum of the new information and its
probative value on hijacking neither supports nor reinforces the hypothesis that
SE-BDY may have been subjected to a hijack while flying from Leopoldville and
Ndola.
258. On the matter of possible official collusion by a State or States or their
officials, the probative value of the new information before the Panel does not
substantiate its existence. At the same time, it also does not exclude or eliminate
such a possibility given the open questions in this regard.
259. While there was some consideration by the UN Commission regarding the
effects of fatigue on flight crew performance, it was nevertheless insufficient by
contemporary investigation standards. However, the possible role of crew fatigue
does not in and of itself, explain the cause of the crash or the extent, if at all, to
which fatigue was a contributing factor to the crash of SE-BDY under one or more
of the hypotheses of the possible causes.
260. Considered in its totality, apart from the discovery of primary and secondary
medical material, the new information is only marginally supported by any physical
evidence.
261. In relation to the parts of the new information about an aerial attack or threat
and its probative value, which was assessed as moderate, the statements by
eyewitnesses that they observed more than one aircraft in the air at the same time as
SE-BDY made its approach to Ndola or of jets or that SE-BDY was on fire before it
impacted the ground or that it was fired upon or other otherwise actively engaged by
other aircraft present; the alleged hearing of radio transmissions or reading of a
radio transcript about the event by two witnesses; and the additional information
that has emerged on the air capability of the provincial Government of Katanga in
1961 and its use of foreign military and paramilitary personnel, may also provide an
appreciable lead in pursuing the truth of the probable cause or causes of the air
crash and tragic deaths.
X. Recommendations
262. The Panel provides the following recommendations:
(a) The Panel notes that the records and archives containing information on
the conditions and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of former Secretary-
General Dag Hammarskjld and of the members of the party accompanying him,
including primary and secondary material such as the original X-rays and the
post-mortem medical examination reports of the victims, pathological analysis and
charts and other crucial medical information are held in both private and public
archival holdings, and are located in various States (Canada, Sweden and the UK)
64/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 65/99
A/70/132
66/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 67/99
A/70/132
68/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 69/99
A/70/132
70/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 71/99
A/70/132
72/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 73/99
A/70/132
74/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 75/99
A/70/132
76/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 77/99
A/70/132
78/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 79/99
A/70/132
80/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 81/99
A/70/132
82/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 83/99
A/70/132
84/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 85/99
A/70/132
86/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 87/99
A/70/132
88/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 89/99
A/70/132
90/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 91/99
A/70/132
92/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 93/99
A/70/132
94/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 95/99
A/70/132
96/99 15-09722
A/70/132
15-09722 97/99
A/70/132
98/99 15-09722
A/70/132
Victor E Rosez
15-09722 99/99